“We’re seeing an alteration of the innate immune response,” says pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole, founder of Cole Diagnostics.
In recent months, Cole said he started seeing a number of disturbing trends under the microscope: the appearance of a childhood disease in adults and an uptick in rare cancers. Other doctors have echoed his observations, he says, but rigorous studies are not being conducted.
“You cannot find that for which you do not look,” he says.
We also take a look at what factors impact how an individual fares with COVID-19. America has a vitamin D crisis, which is essential to a functioning immune system, Cole says. “This is a public health message that is so critical, because so goes your vitamin D level, so goes your overall ability to fight off not just COVID, but any virus in any viral season.”
Jan Jekielek: Dr. Ryan Cole, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.
Dr. Ryan Cole: Thank you Jan, pleasure to be here.
Mr. Jekielek: So, Dr. Cole, we were both a little bit earlier today at this march to ‘Defeat the Mandates’ in Washington, D.C. at the Lincoln Memorial. And it looked to me like you were one of the MCs. So great opportunity here we have, just to give us an idea of what this was all about and what you feel was accomplished here today.
Dr. Cole: It was a good opportunity to bring thought leaders together, doctors, scientists who have been at the forefront of COVID to share a message in unity, going forward. Trying to stop some of the policy and procedures that have happened that have been non-scientific. So these are people, physician colleagues, from around the world. You know many of them, Dr. Mercola, Dr. Malone, Dr. Urso, Dr. Corey, who have been emphasizing early treatment. Those who have seen the risks to these shots. The fact that the shots are outdated now that we have essentially a new virus here. Omicron.
So this was an opportunity to really unify the people on both sides, vaccinated, or unvaccinated, doesn't matter what your political party is to basically say, "Hey, our body is ours, our sacred temple, and there's no reason for us to be mandating something that doesn't make sense, especially for the children." So it was a good opportunity. And yes, my colleagues said, "Hey, why don't you MC today?" And I thought, "Okay, it would be fun." And it was. It was a good opportunity to see people come together in this manner.
Mr. Jekielek: So it's not necessarily obvious how you came from being in this, many, many years in a diagnostics business, that's been the core of your work for a long time, to suddenly being on stage here at the Lincoln Memorial. I got to dig in a little bit and find out what is your background, what is it that you did work on and now have been working on? And how did that lead you to here?
Dr. Cole: Sure. It was all a divine accident. I'm kind of an extroverted introvert, really. I've been a busy pathologist, trained at the Mayo Clinic, trained in anatomic and clinical pathology, surgical pathology. Did some Ph.D. work in immunology and then did a sub-specialty fellowship in dermatopathology in New York, under The World Expert. So yes, I'm a pathologist—been independent for 18 years-
Mr. Jekielek: And super briefly, pathology just for the layperson.
Dr. Cole: Ah, yes. For pathology, I'm the most important doctor that you never meet that you always hope is right? Meaning I get a piece of you and you don't come to see me, but that piece of you comes to see me. So I'm the doctor to the doctor. I make that cancer diagnosis, that infection diagnosis. I look at your blood work panels. I look at your microbiology reports.
I look at, we jokingly call it in the business meat or juice. Anyway, we either look at tissue or liquids from the body and analyze what disease process is happening in that individual. So my job is to be a diagnostician. Now I did work [in the] emergency room, family medicine and dermatology for many years as well. So I'm a very clinically oriented pathologist. So I think in clinical realms, but I diagnose and help the doctor understand his or her patient's disease.
Mr. Jekielek: And you've been in this personal practice for years?
Dr. Cole: 18 years, I've seen about 500,000 patients in my career.
Mr. Jekielek: Seen through a microscope or something like that?
Dr. Cole: Mostly through the microscope.
Mr. Jekielek: You're going through your normal routines and coronavirus comes around in early 2020, and so what happens?
Dr. Cole: Well, having the background in immunology and virology, I thought, "Okay, this is interesting. What's the new pandemic?" I was familiar with the original SARS-CoV-1. I had studied that reasonably well. When MERS came around, I had studied that well, too. So I thought, "Okay, here's another coronavirus. So let's see what's different about this one or what's the same about it." And it's almost 80 percent the same as the original SARS-CoV-1.
So I thought, "Okay, we know what happened there." It came through, affected mostly the elderly in terms of the adverse outcomes and then burned itself out reasonably quickly. And those who had been exposed were immune and still are 18 years later, I thought, "Okay, so we can manage this." And then I watched what the world did and I thought, "This is an interesting approach to something," the two weeks to flatten the curve and we're afraid of what this might do.
So I dove into the genetic sequences, I dove into what are the differences in the spike protein? What's the history of this virus compared to what we've seen before. And doing virology in the laboratory, molecular diagnostics, I thought, "Okay, we're going to have to bring on some extra testing in the lab," which we did. That was a slog because all the money went to the giant corporate labs at first, and I'm trying to get it to the community setting. And eventually, over the pandemic, we've tested maybe 150,000 plus patients through a community independent lab.
Mr. Jekielek: It's your lab?
Dr. Cole: My lab. Yes, yes. Yeah. I'm not the only lab in the state, there are plenty of others, but we were the first ones to say, "Look, we can't wait seven to 10 days, by the time a virus has done replicating, it's five to seven days. So to get an answer by then is too late." So I tried to do what I could to get testing ramped up in my community early. So we focused on that for the early part of the pandemic. And again, was studying how is this affecting society [and] which age stratification. We had a fascinating lab example early on in society and that was a tale of two ships. And that was the Diamond Princess that everybody had heard about and the USS Roosevelt.
So we had this cruise ship and we saw that the virus had affected the elderly and the ratio of the case fatality rate was amongst the elderly. Then you had the USS Roosevelt where one individual with preexisting conditions succumbed, but you had about the same infection rate on both ships. And we knew early on, if we had followed the work of Dr. Ioanaddis or Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, we would've said, "Huh, they're right, from an epidemiologic point of view." And we had those early studies. So as a pathologist, as a pattern diagnostician, what pathology is pattern.
Mr. Jekielek: Just one question before we go to the pattern. So right about what? What were right about Ioanaddis and Dr. Bhattacharya both at Stanford, right about? Yeah.
Dr. Cole: Yeah. They were right about, look, the virus is infecting a lot more people than our tickers on the TV were saying. We had this case fatality rate of scary percentages, but really the case fatality rate, you can only calculate if you know the true number of infections. So they went out into the communities and said, "Okay, here's the number of people who are in the hospital, are dying.
But the actual number of people infected is far more than that, which makes this case fatality rate just a fraction of a percent instead of many percentage points. So we had this construct societally of three percent or eight percent of people are going to die. If you looked at the Northern Italy data early on, when in reality it was, if you're above age 65 with four comorbidities, then you have a 0.5 percent chance of passing on, or one percent or two percent. But under age 65 with no comorbidities, the case fatality rate was essentially almost zero.
So Dr. Ioanaddis and Dr. Bhattacharya who was one of the authors on the Great Barrington Declaration, and I've become friends with him. They were right early but the governmental policy, when we looked at it, was more the panic and scare instead of following the data or following those lab ship examples as it were.
So I know you and I were conversing a little before, we're both patterned people. And my day job is millions of cells a day goes through my eyeballs and millions of data patterns in the laboratory go through my eyeballs. I see maybe 40,000 biopsies a year, I'm responsible for tens of thousands of blood tests. So patterns, patterns, patterns. So I saw the patterns early on, and then our reaction to those patterns is really where I kind of woke up and said, "Wait, things aren't making sense here. Our approach to this, our public policy, wasn't really matching the medicine."
Mr. Jekielek: For a while you were just thinking about this to yourself, but then at some point you were invited to a seminar. Tell me about this. I heard a little bit about this.
Dr. Cole: Yes. So this was an unexpected journey. I was certainly educating patients as they came through the lab. I had heard some of the early treatment lectures from some of my other colleagues. I had been looking into the repurposed medicines as well and started treating patients.
My first patient was my younger brother, obese, type one diabetic. He's lost some weight. He always tells me to tell people that now. He was my first COVID patient, really sick, on his way to the ER. I said, "Don't go to the ER, go to the pharmacy. I'm calling in some ivermectin." Treated him. 24 hours later he calls me, "Hey, remember that pain I was having in my lungs. Remember my oxygen was 86. Well, I'm up to 98 and I feel great." In one day, and that's how some of the earlier variants reacted to some of these earlier treatments.
So that was my early experience with that. I had been educating patients from the time we started testing. They were coming through the lab and I swabbed thousands of sick patients personally, in addition to my team. And I would advise them on, "Get your vitamin D levels up. If we have an international vitamin D deficiency pandemic, make sure your immune system is tuned up. That's a critical part." So I had been doing educating.
Then I started doing some early treating, because I never forgot how to be an actual practicing doctor. And then a friend of mine came to the lab and said, "Hey, the Lieutenant governor in your state, Idaho, puts on an educational seminar during the legislative session once a week. She wants somebody to speak on COVID." Well, the local media had done some stories on how much we'd helped the community and were trying to do for the community. And I lived at the lab for three months literally while we were in the first wave.
So I went to the state capital to give a little 20 minute lunchtime chit-chat lecture while people were having their sandwich on, here's some tidbits about COVID. By then I'd read thousands of articles and seen thousands of patients. So I put together a little synopsis and next day, after giving that fun lecture, I got a few pats on the back and I thought, "Okay, that was fun." "Hey, you've had 10,000 views, you've had 50,000 views."
I'm like, "Wait views. I didn't post anything." Somebody had videoed it and it went viral until of course YouTube took it down because the information in it basically, take care of your immune health. Take your vitamin D. Guess what, there are early treatments. Guess what, these shots are experimental. Informed consent is critically important when we're using something brand new on a society without long term data.
So I gave a very common sense message in a very passionate way I've been told and it resonated with a lot of people, even at today's march and talk. I had so many people, "That talk you gave." Like, "Oh yeah, I know." And I've been shocked and surprised that so many other colleagues haven't spoken out. So when that happened, that first one, then I got invited to come on this program or that program, "Will you educate us on this? Can you tell us about that?" So I've been very data driven and just tried to share the scientific truth and then point out where the public policies and the decisions we're making or imposing upon people don't match what we know scientifically.
Mr. Jekielek: So you started treating patients for COVID?
Dr. Cole: I did.
Mr. Jekielek: Yes.
Dr. Cole: And this is interesting, first patient was my brother and that went well. Type one diabetic, comorbidities. We knew by that time who was having adverse outcomes, the comorbid, underlying conditions, elderly. Next patient I treated was my 78 year old mother, probably got it from my brother. But she was better in 36 hours. Prophylaxis, my dad who never got COVID. And so it was an interesting journey. And then patients would continue to come to me and say, "Hey, my doctor won't treat me. What do I do?" And then a couple other colleagues around the country help. We have too many patients, there's a telehealth service. "Can you help?"
And I thought, my calling as a physician is to help. That doctor patient sacred relationship is about humanity and the story of the good Samaritan. I can't watch a fellow human being suffer, knowing that there's something that can be done while I watch so many medical colleagues do nothing or demonize early treatments on which they were misinformed.
Scientifically, I read so much [the] mechanisms of action, pathophysiology, pharmacokinetics, understanding how these maligned early treatment medicines actually do work. And how many years we've known for over a decade, how many effects ivermectin has on RNA viruses? Same thing with hydroxychloroquine. There are countless studies and mechanisms saying, "Yeah, these are antivirals, they're not just antiparasitics." And indeed we've known that for a long time.
Mr. Jekielek: So at least worthy of consideration.
Dr. Cole: Absolutely worthy of consideration with foundational science behind them. And so, yes, I started treating patients and to date I've treated 350, 400 patients of which not a single one's gone to the hospital, not a single one has passed away. So early treatment does save lives and what's a pathologist doing treating patients? Well at the core of who [I am], I'm a physician. And I did all those years of medicine prior to doing pathology, that I'm not going to let a patient suffer if I can alleviate that suffering. That's my calling.
Mr. Jekielek: Something we haven't really talked about too much on the show before is the value of vitamin D because this is something that you don't need a doctor for frankly, right?
Dr. Cole: Correct.
Mr. Jekielek: And from what I understand, it's pretty significant having a decent level of vitamin D—puts you in a lot stronger position relative to the virus, as I understand it. Maybe you can expound on this a bit, because you mentioned it earlier.
Dr. Cole: Yes. I did mention that, in that talk that I gave, I had mentioned, "Look, we don't just have that vitamin D deficiency. It's at pandemic levels. We have an indoor lifestyle now, and it's shocking as I see those patterns in the lab, I realize how many people have a low vitamin D." And too many doctors actually don't check that on their patients.
So vitamin D isn't a vitamin per se, it's a prohormone that our body will make in the spring and summer months when we get our sunshine and in the fall and the winter, this is where I got controversial as well, I said, "Look, there's really no such thing as flu and cold season, there's just low vitamin D season." And it's a little hyperbolic. But even a study by Dr. Anthony Martino that came out a couple years ago said, "Look, if your vitamin D levels are normal, your propensity to get a flu or cold is cut by half. And then if you do get one, your symptoms and severity are cut by half as well."
So it's out there in the medical literature and more vitamin D levels decrease cancer risks in about 17 different cancers, decrease death from coronary disease, decrease problems with osteoporosis, decrease viral infections, decrease clotting disorders. So many things that vitamin D does because it's an essential part of our pathophysiology.
So I spoke out about this and I said, "Look, if we can get our vitamin D levels up, our chances of being severe with COVID are far less." Well, a large study by Dr. Kaufman in 2020 looked back at 191,000 patients and said, "Hey look, if your vitamin D levels above 50 or not, above 50 your chance of getting COVID goes down by about half and your severity goes down by 80 plus percent." Mayo clinic did a study and said, if your vitamin D is above 30, your chance of being in the ICU was cut by a huge percentage. And then if it was below 30 and below 20, then that was your high percentage chance of getting intubated.
So we had signals early on. Vitamin D is like the conductor of a fine symphony. And it tells your body, this section come in, that section tune out, this section come in, and come in at mezzo forte and at forte and go down to piano. So vitamin D is that conductor of our immune system.
Now you've heard about the cytokine storm from which people have passed. If your vitamin D is insufficient, your immune system is more like the mosh pit at a punk rock concert. Ping, ping, ping crashing together and not having that signal to turn on or turn off. So vitamin D is this fantastic conductor of orderliness in our immune responses. And every nucleus on every cell in your body has a receptor for vitamin D. So, as a pathologist and as one who studies patterns, I tried to share this message of how important this is for our overall immune health.
Mr. Jekielek: Yes. And it's not a cure all or something-
Dr. Cole: Oh, not at all.
Mr. Jekielek: ... but it sounds like something that most people in COVID pandemic time might want to know, right?
Dr. Cole: In any flu and cold season and see, this is another fascinating data point. So the darker your skin, the farther north you live in the world, the lower the vitamin D levels tend to be. Because dark skin is a natural sunscreen. So if you look at the death rates across the world during the first wave of the pandemic. In all the Northern cities, there's a wall of honor for those healthcare workers, a hospital in the UK colleague of mine said, "It's fascinating that all of those colleagues that passed away early in the pandemic, that were nurses and doctors, were all darker skinned." This is a public health message that is so critical, because so goes your vitamin D level. So goes your overall ability to fight off, not just COVID, but any virus in any viral season.
And so goes that basic equilibrium of your immune response. So if you looked at San Francisco, if you looked at Chicago, if you looked at Detroit, if you looked at New York, if you looked at the deaths actually in Sweden, everybody criticized Sweden's response to the pandemic. The deaths were in the darker skin Somalian and Ethiopian women and men that were in a Northern climate with darker skin and in their culture, they cover up as well. So they had rickets level, as in, vitamin D levels of 8, 7, 9-
Mr. Jekielek: And this was studied?
Dr. Cole: This was studied. This was data, but public health messaging, "These are not the droids you're looking for. This doesn't matter.” It's critical to our health. Again, as you point out, it's not the be all, end all, but to look at public health messaging ignoring…
I was on a federal committee for race and COVID several months back invited with a couple of other, four or five of us, but that was one of the points I brought up, "Yes, we have an obesity crisis within many populations, but we also have a vitamin D crisis.” And we hear about the social disparities and the social disparities causing risks for COVID, certainly that may be a factor, but we have to get down to the basic biological disparity. To not teach people that if you have dark skin, you need even more vitamin D if you're living further north. It's just a basic evolutionary biology message we should be sharing.
A darker skinned individual living in Chicago will synthesize about six times less vitamin D than a lighter skinned individual. So it's so much more important in those communities where, obviously we're trying to optimize the health, that should be a message of public health officials. Look, what can we do that's inexpensive and an easy message to get out there? This is one of them. It's not the only thing obviously, but as a pattern diagnostician, I thought, "Huh, isn't this interesting?"
Mr. Jekielek: So in terms of these patterns, what else have you seen looking through the microscope?
Dr. Cole: That's a great question. And this was what was interesting. So pattern wise, yes, early treatments I saw with my colleagues and I didn't treat a ton of patients, my colleagues treated a lot more than I. I helped where I could because I was busy in the lab. But in the lab, after the shots rolled out, I do a fair amount of skin biopsy work.
And I noticed after the shots rolled out, there's this little viral bump that I generally see in children. It's called Molluscum contagiosum, it's a parapoxvirus. Usually kids will get it. Contagiosum is the name because it's pretty contagious and kids pass it back and forth when they're little. But usually by the time you're in your twins or teens, your immune system keeps it in check.
Mr. Jekielek: What does it do to people that have it?
Dr. Cole: Oh, that virus just causes little skin warty bumps. It's not a human papilloma virus. It's a parapoxvirus, but it causes this little white warty bump. So the interesting thing was, okay, kids get that. When the shots rolled out, you remember how we rolled it out to the older age groups first? So I get a lot of skin cancer biopsies from the dermatologists and family doctors around the country and my region.
And I started noticing an uptick in this bump that I usually see in children in the elderly. And I thought, "Oh no, this is unusual. I never see this. This is an infection of childhood, not of the elderly." And then I started seeing more and then more, and I thought, "Wait a minute, this is immune dysregulation of some sort." And I had already had my concerns about using an experimental therapy, not knowing what certain ingredients were, not knowing what they would do.
And I, again, I had read thousands upon thousands of COVID papers. COVID was my obsession. Whether it was online lectures or reading lectures, looking at the immune responses, trying to find is anybody writing about this, et cetera. So I saw that bump. I saw that immune dysregulation, I thought, "Uh-Oh, Houston, we have a problem.” Because that line of cells, that line of T-cells that keeps viruses in check, that family of cells also keeps cancers in check. Well, at the same time, about a month or two later, all of a sudden there are certain types of cancers that I commonly see in the laboratory after 500,000 patients. You have an idea year to year over what you're seeing.
I started seeing endometrial cancers go up and there's certain type... Melanomas, I started seeing thicker and earlier as well. And of course I thought, "Okay, is this because we've been locked down or is this because people aren't going to their doctor, or are they missing their visits? Or is it correlating with a timeframe in which people are getting the shots?"
It was both, but I know which clinics never shut down during the pandemic, and I know which ones did. So I did a statistical analysis and regression, I thought, "Okay, I'm seeing an increase in these certain things." Now my colleagues will criticize and say, "Well, that's just anecdotal." And I can say, "Yeah, you're right. I only see 25,000 patients, 40,000 biopsies a year. You can't do a complete statistic set on that." But at least I saw the patterns and all science really starts with an observation.
So I pointed this out. And then interestingly as I've been invited and talked at lectures around the country, other oncologists have come up to me or called me. Or even just yesterday, a radiation oncologist came up to me and said, "You're right. Something is wrong. I am seeing cancers that we normally keep in check. We know we can manage this cancer.
And the patient will get 2, 3, 5, 6 good years of life, but they got their shot or they got their booster, and then two months later, their cancer is a wildfire. And these are things that we've managed easily in the past." So again, as a pathologist, I go to what's the pathophysiologic mechanism, what's causing this [and] what's going awry. And there was a really good paper by Dr. Föhse et al out of the Netherlands, looking at the Pfizer vaccines.
And they did a pretty good analysis of the immune system after the shots. And their conclusion was alarming and concerning in the sense that it said, we're seeing an alteration of the innate immune response. All you hear about in the news is antibodies, antibodies, antibodies, what are your antibodies? That's really not the most important part of our immune system. The most important part is our T-cell response.
Those are the marines of our immune system, the first ones in. And they're the ones when an invader comes in, they have these little hand grenades, they poke a hole with an enzyme called a perforin, and then they throw in a grand enzyme and they blow up the infected cell. Same thing with cancer. They do the same thing all day long, your immune system, these soldiers, your T-cells, your macrophage or your dendritic cells.
They're your front line saying, "It's something, friend or foe." So they'll shake hands with your cells and say, "Oh, this cell has some mutations. This is an early cancer cell. They'll blow it up. Well, that study out of the Netherlands was saying this innate immune system, this innate immune response seems to be altered in not acting right. And we have receptors, these little puzzle pattern receptors, this lock with that, and they're called Toll-like receptors, spelled just like a toll road.
So Toll receptor 7 and 8 are very important for signaling to say to your body, "Hey, you need to be awake and on to fight off this virus, that virus, that virus, that virus." So we have virus in our bodies all the time, but our immune system says, "No, I'll keep you in check. You're not going to wake up. You can't infect me right now. We're revved. We know how to fight you off."
There are also some Toll-like receptors that are very important for talking to your innate immune system. And your T-cell saying, "Hey, if you're in normal numbers, then we'll be revved up and we'll fight off those cancer cells." Well, in that Pfizer study by Dr. Föhse, they realize these receptors are dropped down and tuned out or tuned all the way off in some.
And so the problem now becomes that signal you have to your soldiers, now the soldiers are snoozing or drunk in the barracks and they can't even wake up. And now if you look at the data you realize after the shots, there were tons of shingles outbreaks, tons of them. That was another pattern I saw in the lab as well. Well that's because those Toll-like receptors were down regulated.
Same thing, I started seeing the uptick in cancers. Well, why is that? Because mechanistically things that were always supposed to be on were unintentionally shut off. And in addition to that, we have other gene receptors to which the spike protein binds the P53 tumor suppressor gene, the guardian of our genome. Dysregulation in that gene can also lead to cancer pathways, well we know part of this spike protein binds to that. The BRCA gene you hear about in breast cancers, same thing. It binds to that.
So we know from a laboratory nerdy, geeky point of view, the mechanisms. And so in the laboratory, I'm saying I'm seeing an uptick in cancers that I shouldn't be seeing, at rates I shouldn't be seeing, in age groups I shouldn't be seeing. And then I've talked to colleagues around the world and they're starting to verify what we really need is when a scientist... they just basically marginalize you and say, "Oh, that's out of the narrative, don't look at that."
My point of view is if we have something novel and new, which they say the virus was, even though it was 80 percent not novel, because it was so similar to SARS-CoV-1, when something is novel and new, i.e. these gene injections to stimulate an immune response, that's novel and new.
So we should take this approach of the French Legal System, guilty until proven innocent. So every adverse reaction, every odd pattern outside the normal after these shots, should have triggered a red flag to say, "We need to do an autopsy on that death. It was proximate to their shots," or "Gosh, this patient that was healthy and well now is not so healthy and well. We need to investigate, is this related to this new experimental modality that we're putting on to a broad world population." That would be the logical thing to do. That would be the observational and the scientific thing to do.
Meanwhile, we had federal agents who shall not be named saying, or we could name them, it doesn't matter. But at the end of the day, they said, "Don't do autopsies. We're not going to look at that. We're not going to fund that." Which doesn't, from a moral ethical point of view, make any sense. If we're going to roll something out, brand new in our population and then tell people they're safe and effective, there's no problems. You can't make that claim.
In fact, I think it violates the False Claims Act in advertising here in the United States, in terms of telling people they need to be in an experiment, something safe and effective, but you're not studying whether they are or not. Those of us who have sounded the alarm, we're realizing in many people they're not safe and not effective. The laboratory patterns in addition to the cancers, we see elevations and clotting factors persisting for a long period of time, post vaccine.
We should be doing a comparison of the COVID recovered patients to the vaccinated patients and these different disease patterns. Because in a vaccine patient, you're only getting about 12 percent of the protein of the whole virus. In natural infection, you get your whole immune system to talk to each other. With a vaccine, it's a different story. And these shots never were modified from the original gene sequence. Now we're onto Omicron. These shots don't even cover Omicron.
So these clotting patterns, these death patterns, these autopsy patterns, these cancer patterns, these viral patterns. All I'm saying is pathologists are generally the first ones to see something as awry or amiss with the health of a regional population. Like when HIV was discovered. I know one of the colleagues who was seeing some of the skin cancers related to HIV in New York and he thought, "Huh, this is a certain population."
Then it takes doctors coming together actually to have dialogue. We've missed dialogue in society these past two years to say, "Are you seeing this pattern? Are you seeing this pattern?" Instead they marginalize you or say, "Oh, that's just crazy, and of course that's not happening." Instead of saying, "Hey, let's sit down at the table, dialogue together, put data together and figure out is this a signal or not?" And if it's not great, but if it is, we owe humanity what we trained to do to find out why.
Mr. Jekielek: So I guess suggested inadvertently a bunch of studies that should be ongoing. You talked about autopsies, but why don't you give me a picture based on what you're talking right now, based on the signals that you've been seeing, right? What are the studies that you think should be done as a priority right now?
Dr. Cole: Number one, all the federal databases, a cancer is put into the system by billing codes. So it would be really easy for the insurance companies and the government to do a statistical age bracketed analysis for every type of cancer because we have to code. When we put on our reports, what type of cancer, what code it gets, so we could do an age stratification to very easily look at upticks, post roll out of the shots.
And you can do a very easy comparative cohort of that against the unvaccinated, those who have chosen not to get these shots. And you could do it from 2018 to 2019, we have the data sets and these should be open public record. It would be very easy to now have statistical significance of millions of patients. So that would be a very simple one that we should have done the day the shots rolled out.
Every government agency should have been tracking that and reporting it. And it's interesting in retrospect to go and think that since the first shot rolled out, how many data safety briefings, how many efficacy briefings, how many, "This is succeeding, this isn't." Have we heard from the FDA, the CDC or the NIH in the last year now, not a single public safety. That should have been monthly and we haven't had a single one, even though they promised they would, they didn't. So that would be one study, just a statistical analysis of cancer upticks.
Mr. Jekielek: So just to be clear, and you would use the 2018, 2019 data as a control data?
Dr. Cole: As a control group, correct.
Mr. Jekielek: I see. And then have the unvaccinated as another group to relate and then the vaccinated.
Dr. Cole: Yes. From the time the shots rolled out until now, that would be a good comparison.
Mr. Jekielek: And also there's different vaccines, that's another thing that is in play.
Dr. Cole: True, true. And the two mRNA based ones. At the end of the day, they're all making a spike protein. And the important aspect of the toxic effect that one is seeing in the body is that the spike protein technically has toxic capacity. When we designed these, there were individuals that went before Congress that are very well known in the realms of vaccinology that said we need to be very, very careful about using the whole spike protein, knowing the history of the SARS-CoV-1 vaccine failures, and the MERS attempted vaccine failures that never made it out of the animal trials because of the toxic effects.
And the adverse immune responses that came down the road once the new wild type viruses would come along. So we knew early on, using a full spike sequence was a bad idea. There was much talk of just using a receptor-binding domain and/or using another protein, but not using the spike.
But at the end of the day, he said, "Eh, we'll just do the spike." Well, the Salk Institute did studies and they took the spike protein attached to a little inert particle. So it was only the spike being injected in their mammal models and all the same disease we saw in the lungs, the brain, the heart, the kidneys, the liver that we were seeing in some of the infected patients, we were seeing exactly with the spike protein alone.
So we realized the spike can cause all the same changes as the entire virus can. And meanwhile, we chose to give that spike as the protein, well, the mRNA to make our body make the spike, which we've never done before. With a lipid nanoparticle, which is like garlic, it goes everywhere. Those lipid nanoparticles can diffuse to any organ and cross the blood brain barrier.
The lipid nanoparticles as well have so many chemicals that we've never trialed in humans before either. So we have all these parts that we're putting into people hoping for a good response, but not knowing in any long-term study what the long term data is going to be. So it's a grand experiment on humanity that we've done.
But we had early signals of toxicity and we had early opportunities to say, "Maybe this isn't a good idea." Especially if we had deferred to the great data we were already seeing on early treatments, and the unfortunate narrative that there was nothing we could do to save people from this disease. Lock down, wear a mask and get a shot, that is your only option. Which is nonsense because from a public health point of view, obviously we already talked about the vitamin D messages.
Talk about losing weight. Talk about modifying our poor western diet here and in other parts of the world. Talk about moving our bodies, talk about getting sleep, public health, but meanwhile, there's nothing we can do, is all we ever heard. But from a laboratory point of view, I watched who was healthy, I watched who was unhealthy. I watched these reactions. So these studies could have been done and should have been done.
So the first one I would do would be the cancer analysis. The second one that has started to be done by people who are looking from the outside in, but should be done by the federal agencies. Our data in the United States is very poor. A lot of the world has much better data than we do, but we're seeing an uptick in all cause deaths in groups that have received the shot versus those that didn't.
Dr. Pantazatos out of Columbia, a neurobiologist, Dr. Neil Fenton out of the United Kingdom, they're looking at the data sets, who got the shot, who didn't get the shot. Those who did, what are they dying from? And across the board, their death rate is now up compared to the other group. Which tells us again, there's something mechanistically wrong with our immune system or with this toxin long-term or short-term.
And here's an interesting aspect of it. It's that spike protein, I keep calling it a toxin, I know I'll get criticized by some for that. Dr. Ogata at Harvard did a study and we're told you get the shot in the arm, your cells will use that mRNA or the DNA and the J&J gets turned into messenger RNA and then makes the spike protein. It stays in your arm and you're good.
Well, actually the studies from Dr. Ogata [at] Harvard showed, no it actually circulates throughout your body for anywhere from two to four weeks. We know from the Salk study that that spike can cause inflammation and the same reactions as COVID did. So we know now for two to four weeks, you have something that can trigger immune cascades and problem circulating.
So when they say, "Gosh, a death from a shot can only be in the first couple of days, historically." Not if a toxin is circulating for two to four weeks. So when we hear of these famous people that died two weeks after their shot, oh no, these are not the droids you're looking for. It wasn't the shot. Mechanistically that protein is circulating. So it could be the shot. So we should have done autopsies on all these people, looking for the presence of that circulating spike protein.
And then in a study published in the Journal of Immunology in exosomes, we found the spike protein circulating for up to four months. And then the work of Dr. Bruce Patterson, where he's been tracking what type of cells in the body carry the spike protein and for how long in patients post-COVID, for up to 15 months, they had the spike as well.
So I'm not saying it's all the shot. I don't want to say that. But a lot of people have long haul symptoms from COVID itself. So we need to be studying who are the ones with certain genetic subtypes that are predisposed to having long haul disease or vaccine injury. And these are things from a molecular level in the laboratory we can do. We can say your gene type is this. You are at a higher risk from COVID or your gene type is this you're at higher risk from shots.
So very easy studies to do, but then when you go to the federal agencies to say, "This is something we should be really looking at." And they say, "No." And I don't know if that's in acquiescence to big pharma and their funding and the intertwining dependence they have on each other, that these are captured federal agencies, that are really now more representing pharma than they are the citizens.
So these agencies should be studying the adverse effects and instead they have a self-interest in the revenues flowing into them, because they have patent rights that are being used to make a vaccine that's being used to be mandated upon our citizenry. That's immoral and that's unethical to have that intertwining interest and then to mandate it as well. And that conflict of interest inhibits the opportunity to do full and complete and good science.
Mr. Jekielek: So I want to go back to something you said a little bit earlier, and I got the sense that you're saying that some of these studies that you're suggesting be done urgently, actually the data exists already for them. And it's just a matter of basically doing the analysis at this point.
Dr. Cole: You're correct. And that's really an interesting, easy way... I could be wrong in my assessment and if I am, I want to know. This is about humanity and this is about, "Is there harm or not?" And if there is signal, then we need to change what we're doing quickly. And so because of AI algorithms, because of our software abilities now, because of these large federal databases that keep track of these billing codes, we could do that yesterday.
If there were one, the political will, number two, the funding, or number three, if they don't keep us from doing it, just like they want to hide the Pfizer data and that had to be forced. At the same time, just looking into our own governmental data should be a very easy signal to look at.
Mr. Jekielek: You're suggesting another thing here, which is, you're hoping that all this data becomes available. The data that's not readily available right now, for whatever reason, right?
Dr. Cole: Yes. If indeed we're in a pandemic, we should have absolute transparency in data and information. If you want to know what's going on in life, follow the money. If you want to know what the truth is, see who's being silenced. They threw Galileo in the tower. He wasn't wrong about his astronomical observations. It's very frustrating to be seeing things and scientifically being silenced instead of having dialogue with colleagues.
Because historically science was done with observation, set your hypothesis, do the experiment, confirm or deny it. But in this day and age now, if you see something that doesn't fit a certain construct or rubric, you're canceled, instead of, "Huh, now that's an interesting thought. Does it have validity? Should we do something based on that? Should we look at that data? Should we see if the science bears it out or not?" "Yeah, because lives are on the line here. If this is supposedly a pandemic, we should be doing the most assiduous scientific pursuit of anything we've ever done."
Mr. Jekielek: And you mean supposedly, just because you're not seeing this being done, for whatever reason.
Dr. Cole: Correct. Correct. When you hear, "Don't study that. Don't do autopsies," why wouldn't we. "Don't look at that database. Why? Why wouldn't we, of course we should. This is about, obviously, it's about a virus. It's about humanity. It's about the human condition, but it is bad science not to look, you cannot find that for which you do not look.
So we should be looking and to save lives, we should be looking now. And to prevent harm, that's the other important point. If we think that these modalities are safe and effective or certain drugs that we've used that, in retrospect are toxic as well, remdesivir as an example. The WHO said a year ago, don't use that.
So we should be looking at all these drugs. We should be looking at all these mechanisms. We should be looking at the pathology. We should be looking at the vaccines. We should be looking at everything. And instead, all we hear is, "Do this, this, and this, do what we say." That's illogical. I'm a scientist. We function as Dr. Spock does, based on logic, but so much of what we're doing is so illogical and underfunded, or if it raises the hackles or the interest, it's quickly squashed down.
Mr. Jekielek: So you mentioned the mandating, being tied into potential conflicts of interest. I guess I wanted to fully understand why the whole picture of why the mandates themselves, being the MC at the get rid of the mandates march.
Dr. Cole: First and foremost, just constitutional bill of rights principles, freedom of autonomy, of body to have an experiment forced upon anybody. Even if these were safe and effective, I would still be against mandating them because your body is yours. And it's the only thing you have that's yours. And to have that violated is against the principles of what this nation's founded upon. So that's one, and I think it's a universal principle, I mean, not just this nation, but that should apply worldwide.
Number two, they shouldn't be mandated because they are experimental. And if you follow the morals and ethics of any experiment, any institutional review board, any study, you have to have informed consent. To mandate something further which you can't consent is against all of what we have ever done in medicine and ethics until we had the unfortunate experimentation in Nazi Germany and in the subsequent Nuremberg trials. To force people to be your experimental subject is not who we are.
And not only as a people or as humanity or doctors, it's just not who we are. And meanwhile, we're mandating something for which we're not telling people all the ingredients, for which we have seen more deaths from these shots than all other vaccines combined over the last 30 years of data gathering. Over 21,000 deaths in the VAERS system, that's a highly under reported number and you can get into the statistics and studies on that again as well.
Mr. Jekielek: I just want to jump in for a sec. So I've talked about that with other guests, but again, the VAERS system is a signal.
Dr. Cole: It's a signal.
Mr. Jekielek: It's not definitive, right.
Dr. Cole: But it's our best we have.
Mr. Jekielek: Right. Right. I'm not disputing that, but my point is sometimes I hear this conflated, people say no, "This is a 100 percent. This is real.”
Dr. Cole: Oh, no, no, but just like I'm seeing signals in the lab. Because it's a consistent signal year over year, so people say, like Fauci and Walensky said last week, "Oh. But people go get reported into VAERS after a car crash or whatever." I thought. "Yes. But they do after a measles vaccine too, or after a mumps vaccine." So it's apples to apples in terms of the reporting to the system. So that was a suspicious argument they made in front of Congress the other day.
And I thought, "Huh, I suppose they're trying to hide something because our VAERS' data matches quite well with the EUROMOMO data, the European data and their adverse systems, and then the Yellow Card system in the UK, and then the adverse reactions in the New Zealand reporting system, et cetera, et cetera.
So it's consistent across the board, the number of adverse reactions and deaths we're seeing post-shot worldwide. So we can make that argument about our own VAERS system. But then we can look at the nations that have better data than we do even. And they're still seeing that excess signal of injury and death. So it's an experiment on humanity, it's obviously another reason that I'm against these mandates. And then the most important one of all right now is basic science.
Our policy should rapidly evolve to match the science. Scientifically right now we've been blessed with an accident and that's Omicron. Omicron is essentially a different virus. It doesn't branch off. If you look at the phylogenetic patterns, if you look at the genes, Omicron is its own family tree, it doesn't branch off the other variants. And gratefully, it's acting more like a common cold because it doesn't bind it… I could get nerdy on all the different receptors, I'm not going to, but it's a common cold. That's a blessing.
But at the same time, the vaccine doesn't even cover it. The proteins on that spike are so different now that the shot doesn't cover it. Now we know the shot from what we've discussed earlier, has certain toxicities. To mandate a shot that was originated for this early family tree Wuhan, that's now extinct as of almost a year ago, doesn't even exist. The shot is for that.
We're saying, "We want to give you a shot for five generations ago on this virus, but we're going to give it to you for something that's not even related to this." And this is where the Supreme Court was absolutely wrong last week. Because when they said to healthcare workers, well, you can still mandate that. Why would you mandate something on data that was from four months ago for a different virus?
This is a different virus now, essentially. Yeah, sure. We're calling it SARS-CoV-2 Omicron, but is it really? My wife and I both did our undergraduate honors theses on molecular phylogenetic trees. So this is right up the alley of what we do. And when I look the molecular phylogenetics, the family tree, the branching of this, it is insane to say, "I want you to take a shot for which there's potential death or harm in order to keep your job, in order to keep gainful employment, in order to get into a restaurant or be functional in society, when now we're dealing with a virus that is completely different essentially.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, and there's this other element. Coronaviruses, from what I understand, are known to mutate, quite a bit. So, presumably this is understood as the vaccine development was happening and treatment development and everything. And so how does this factor into the equation here?
Dr. Cole: Well, we're back to square one, essentially with the virus. And now we have a much more benign virus. A blessing from the universe, from the heavens, whatever you want to call it, that's a good thing. It's acting almost as a natural vaccine. It has sequences that are similar to the other portions of the virus, it's just not as damaging as the earlier variants. So coronaviruses always mutate, like you said.
When we started down this pathway of vaccination, if we were scientifically honest and had listened to immunologists of years past and years present, we would've said you cannot chase a coronavirus. There's a reason 40 years later, there's not an HIV vaccine. That's because that virus always mutates. It has a different spike, but it has a spike nonetheless. There are certain families of viruses that have a consistent mutational rate.
We've known historically in virology that coronaviruses have a consistent mutational rate. A vaccine is for planning ahead, you find a protein in a virus that you say, "Okay, if I give this now, I'll make some immune memory. And then when this virus comes along, the body will be stimulated slightly to remember that to say, “oh, I recognize that. I can fight that off."
In the middle of a pandemic with a virus that consistently mutates, we've never done anything like this before. And it doesn't make scientific sense. We are always going to be playing Whac-A-Mole, trying to catch that next mutation, but it's always going to be a mutation ahead of us. This is a family of viruses for which we have never successfully made a vaccine. And if we're scientifically honest, can't make a vaccine, because it will always be ahead of us.
Now we can make perhaps slightly safer ones, but we've never done it in those other ways, that receptor-binding domain or the nucleocapsid. There's some of them out there they're still experimental as well. So we're kind of in this conundrum of, go get your booster, but your booster is pointless, because the virus is going to do what it's always going to. The virus is going to virus, I'd like to say. It's going to do what it's going to do.
And to play God against a virus in a way that it will always outsmart us is not wisdom in science. And that's where we have to say, "Okay, what is the safe and effective early treatment?" Why don't we focus on the treatment modalities instead of thinking that we can prevent something scientifically… I'm not saying don't do science. Science is fantastic. We should always be looking at ways to do this. But when there's more harm than good or more potential harm than good, that's the balance that we always weigh in medicine.
And we've lost a lot of our ethical approach in this regard. And interestingly, if you look at the work of Dr. Gabayan Vandenbosch, he knows, and the Dr. Föhse study, I mentioned earlier, we're messing up our innate immunity. We know from the UK, if you got your shots before you ended up getting infected, you had a narrowed immune response to a certain part of the virus, the nucleocapsids, that was UK week 42 data.
We're seeing now that those who got the shots that are getting Omicron are getting it at higher rates than those that did not get the shots. That's data out of Denmark. So the shots literally predispose you at a higher rate than if you didn't. So there's so many things that we're seeing that if... History is a good teacher, and if we had listened to history, we would've said, "Huh, is the scientific approach we're taking prudent or not?" Now it's easy through the retrospective scope, to say not. But if we had listened to some of the vocal scientists that were being silenced, then we may not find ourselves in the position we're in now.
Mr. Jekielek: So how has business been since you came into the limelight, so to speak from behind the microscope.
Dr. Cole: And that's what's been fascinating. So as one who is now viewed as a heretic for speaking science, I've been attacked. I hold 12 state medical licenses of which four are under attack presently. Not a single patient complained against me out of the 500,000 patients I've seen over the last 26 years. All political attacks from colleagues or political entities on my licenses, business, because of my unprofessional conduct for speaking science and data, I've had insurance companies pull me off their panels.
So as of January 1st, I lost about 30 percent of my business. And at the end of the day, they were mad at me for using a safe, effective drug that kept three to 400 people out of the hospital. So I've been punished for speaking science data and truth. And at the end of the day, do I regret it? Absolutely not. I saved lives.
Mr. Jekielek: Why do you think there's so few doctors looking at things the way you and some of the other people that were around at today's event are?
Dr. Cole: Fear. Fear is the real pandemic. I don't fault my colleagues per se. Many of them are early out of training, have mountains of debt. If they speak up, they've lost their training and their job as a physician. Then you have more, towards my age group, that have kids in college and have a long established career. They don't want to rock the boat.
It's interesting if you observe, those who have spoken out, tend to be independent and/or willing to lose their jobs, because the truth is more important than money. The value of humanity is more important than money. The way we treat our fellow human being is more important than money. Am I benefiting from what I've been speaking about and doing? Absolutely not. Are many of my colleagues? No. Several have lost jobs, several have lost contracts, several have lost licenses, but at the end of the day, the honest answer, I don't know why my colleagues won't step out. That's some of my suppositions.
I can imagine those scenarios, but at the same time, truth is truth. And it's inconvenient no matter where it goes sometimes. And sometimes you have to follow that inconvenient data. And I always reserve the right to be wrong and say to my scientific colleagues, "Let's sit down at the table together, coffee, lunch. If I'm wrong, please show me where I'm wrong. Because what we're sharing is on behalf of humanity." If there are financial interests that drive them, then I think it inhibits that honest, full, complete conversation sometimes.
And that's where it becomes very frustrating is we should really... I can't question anybody's motives. I don't know why they won't speak out, but I do know those individuals that are in this fight for the right to share data, science, truth and fight for the freedom for humanity seem to have a very similar mindset. They're not all politically the same, they just come from the same ethic.
Mr. Jekielek: So today, magic wand, you can help develop some policy thoughts. I don't know what you're going to come up with, but what would you like to see change right now?
Dr. Cole: Number one, I would like to see public health actually be about public health. That's I think the biggest tragedy in this last two years is there's so many things we could have done to be a healthier people. Some of the things I've already talked about—so wave the magic wand to public health.
Number two, get the government out of the people's medical care. The government, policymakers don't need to be dictating what treatment you do or don't get. Let doctors be doctors and prescribe medicines that are safe and effective. Don't punish them for being good doctors and protect the children. Don't ever experiment on the children.
So if I had the magic wand tomorrow, those would be the things I would say. Let's change our public health in the sense that it's about health. Let's stop the mandates because they're ridiculous. Let doctors be doctors. Let's protect our children and value the next generation. The fabric of a society is measured by how we treat our children.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, Dr. Ryan Cole, it's such a pleasure to have you on the show.
Dr. Cole: Jan, it's an honor. Thank you so much.
Mr. Jekielek: We live in an age of weaponized information and censorship. To be the first to know about new American Thought Leaders episodes and related content, you can sign up for our newsletter at theepochtimes.com/newsletter. You can just hit the check mark on American Thought Leaders.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.
Follow EpochTV on social media: